Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Most Adv. Attack Heli, KA-50

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    LOL

    I played the part of prey for a hunting Delta a few times.

    It's no fun.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by thesaint
      If I remember well what I read back in the days, Mi-28 was manly designed for anti-tank role while the Ka-50 was a more all-round machine, with lots of innovative solutions. This magazine listed all the Ka specs, then saying "it seems like a mediocre fighter. Only it's not a fighter, but an helicopter!".
      Also, I believe the Ka is substantially more expensive.

      The Ka-50 is not that much expensive than Mi-28 difference is jus a 1mln or so. But millitary wanted to have two pilot version Ka-52 that is worth $18-19mln vs $12-15mln of Mi-28N. Then millitary preferred Mi-28 as they know this brand very well, it is slightly cheaper, and they expected that its maintainance is cheaper..... However Ka-52 is incomparably better in terms of performance..... while Mi-28 is more a flying gunship against tanks. Again old thinking of more cheap helos instead of few very smart....

      The last problem with Ka-52 is that it has now less payload - additional armor for second pilot took some of usefull wieght on this increadibly small bird. Nonetheless both Ka-50 and Ka-52 have more payload than Appache Longbow.... this is because they have higher payload to gross wieght ratio than both Appache and Mi-28 due to coaxial design which gives higher weight efficiency.

      in US Sikorsky are thinking of coaxial principle - in general may believe that this is the future of a helicopters
      http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ircraft/x2.htm

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by M21Sniper
        LOL

        I played the part of prey for a hunting Delta a few times.

        It's no fun.
        Did you wear the ghillie suits that hide one from IR sensors? How was the Delta hunting?

        Comment


        • #79
          We'd set up a hide on a ridge(really more akin to a cliff face), and the Delta picked us up on his ball FLIR(MMS). He dropped down out of our LOS and used the valley below as a defilade to close right in our position. We heard him gettting closer and closer, but couldn't see him. When he got right under our position he hovered right up the side of the cliff and when he cleared it he was no more than FIFTY METERS from our position.......with twin .50 cals blazing pretty much right in our faces(blanks of course).

          We got our revenge a few days later when we found the BLUFOR FARP while on a deep dismounted reconaissance patrol, and shot it to pieces with simulated direct and indirect fire systems. :)

          As far as what equipment hides one from FLIR, or how well said equipment works, or tactics/techniques used to hide oneself/POS from thermal sensors, i'm simply not going there.

          That's an OPSEC issue, and totally innapropriate for an open forum, especially in time of war.

          Sorry.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Garry
            The Ka-50 is not that much expensive than Mi-28 difference is jus a 1mln or so. But millitary wanted to have two pilot version Ka-52 that is worth $18-19mln vs $12-15mln of Mi-28N. Then millitary preferred Mi-28 as they know this brand very well, it is slightly cheaper, and they expected that its maintainance is cheaper..... However Ka-52 is incomparably better in terms of performance..... while Mi-28 is more a flying gunship against tanks. Again old thinking of more cheap helos instead of few very smart....

            The last problem with Ka-52 is that it has now less payload - additional armor for second pilot took some of usefull wieght on this increadibly small bird. Nonetheless both Ka-50 and Ka-52 have more payload than Appache Longbow.... this is because they have higher payload to gross wieght ratio than both Appache and Mi-28 due to coaxial design which gives higher weight efficiency.

            in US Sikorsky are thinking of coaxial principle - in general may believe that this is the future of a helicopters
            http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ircraft/x2.htm
            Yeah, the single pilot in the "50" allowed for more payload, everything being equal (and also a smaller silhouette).
            Tail rotor has alwas been a weak point, cause you have to protect its transmission all the way from the engine to the tip of the tail. Clearly, coaxial seems a good way to go. The US where experimenting with mini-jets in the tail, but I've not hard about that for a while.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by thesaint
              Yeah, the single pilot in the "50" allowed for more payload, everything being equal (and also a smaller silhouette).
              Tail rotor has alwas been a weak point, cause you have to protect its transmission all the way from the engine to the tip of the tail. Clearly, coaxial seems a good way to go. The US where experimenting with mini-jets in the tail, but I've not hard about that for a while.

              So bigger payload, and more armor at the cost of double work load for the pilot and one less set of eyes in the cockpit, where as in systems like the apache the pilot and the gunner have their own sensors that are independent. What good does it do you to have all that extra crap if your helicopter performance is limited to the abilities and area of vison of one man? And the comparison between a single seat jet fighter in a combat environment and a helicopter performing nap of the earth flying in a combat environment is about as logical as comparing a hot airballoon and a sail boat. They all operate in totatly different environments and situations. Plus while you may not have tail roter gearing and the tail roter its self to protect - you have twice as many blades and mechanics sitting ontop of the mass of the copter which makes that area that much bigger of a target. And were not going to even get into the amount of training you would have to give each pilot in an effort to make him even closely as capable as two men performing the same tasks divided between them. From personal experiance running my own business - two trained men working together are three times as fast performing their tasks then one trained man working by himself. There is a good reason all other combat helicopters are designed with 2 man operation, but it looks like the russians didint get the memo on this one. Like so many russian ideas - some great ideas, yet some really great flaws, but Im glad they finaly figured out putting the ammo aroud the turret maybe wasnt the best idea.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by magic-spaceship
                So bigger payload, and more armor at the cost of double work load for the pilot and one less set of eyes in the cockpit, where as in systems like the apache the pilot and the gunner have their own sensors that are independent. What good does it do you to have all that extra crap if your helicopter performance is limited to the abilities and area of vison of one man? And the comparison between a single seat jet fighter in a combat environment and a helicopter performing nap of the earth flying in a combat environment is about as logical as comparing a hot airballoon and a sail boat. They all operate in totatly different environments and situations. Plus while you may not have tail roter gearing and the tail roter its self to protect - you have twice as many blades and mechanics sitting ontop of the mass of the copter which makes that area that much bigger of a target. And were not going to even get into the amount of training you would have to give each pilot in an effort to make him even closely as capable as two men performing the same tasks divided between them. From personal experiance running my own business - two trained men working together are three times as fast performing their tasks then one trained man working by himself. There is a good reason all other combat helicopters are designed with 2 man operation, but it looks like the russians didint get the memo on this one. Like so many russian ideas - some great ideas, yet some really great flaws, but Im glad they finaly figured out putting the ammo aroud the turret maybe wasnt the best idea.
                Are you saying that you can tell which is better between F-15 and F-14 just based on how many people they have on board ? How about A-10 and Su-25, the ultimate planes for CAS ? They have both a crew of one, haven't they ?

                What you say about the coaxial rotor being a larger target is ridiculous. If an helicopter is critically hit in the rotor area, it goes down no matter what.
                Have a look at a picture of any Kamov helicopter. The rotors' area doesn't look so much bigger than a standard helicopteer, does it ? If you were talking about a rotor arrangement as in the CH-47 then you would have a point, the Ka-50 is different though.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by thesaint
                  Are you saying that you can tell which is better between F-15 and F-14 just based on how many people they have on board ? How about A-10 and Su-25, the ultimate planes for CAS ? They have both a crew of one, haven't they ?

                  What you say about the coaxial rotor being a larger target is ridiculous. If an helicopter is critically hit in the rotor area, it goes down no matter what.
                  Have a look at a picture of any Kamov helicopter. The rotors' area doesn't look so much bigger than a standard helicopteer, does it ? If you were talking about a rotor arrangement as in the CH-47 then you would have a point, the Ka-50 is different though.
                  Your comparing fighter jets to Attack choppers again. I think What Magic Spaceship ( love the avatar dude creeps me out) is what i was saying about the flight controls. A attack helo is maping the earth the pilot has to keep his eyes on where he is going avoiding Tree's, Barns, Houses, Radio towers, the occasional Basketball star..., sudden changes in Terrane. Now What the KA 50 does is say to the pilot that on top of that he Now has to watch for targets, aim, Launch, attack and watch the attack FLIR well still flying the chopper.
                  A fighter jet flies in the open sky Although the navy traditionally likes 2 pilots more computerization has made the back seater no longer a operational need. for Jets.

                  He is also right about the rotors as the same thing that makes the tail rotor a target makes the duel rotor a target. if you take out one pair the chopper will spin out of control. the duel rotor is a a lot larger then a tail rotor.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Terran empire
                    Your comparing fighter jets to Attack choppers again. I think What Magic Spaceship ( love the avatar dude creeps me out) is what i was saying about the flight controls. A attack helo is maping the earth the pilot has to keep his eyes on where he is going avoiding Tree's, Barns, Houses, Radio towers, the occasional Basketball star..., sudden changes in Terrane. Now What the KA 50 does is say to the pilot that on top of that he Now has to watch for targets, aim, Launch, attack and watch the attack FLIR well still flying the chopper.
                    A fighter jet flies in the open sky Although the navy traditionally likes 2 pilots more computerization has made the back seater no longer a operational need. for Jets.

                    He is also right about the rotors as the same thing that makes the tail rotor a target makes the duel rotor a target. if you take out one pair the chopper will spin out of control. the duel rotor is a a lot larger then a tail rotor.
                    What I'm saying is that you can't simplisticly say that the more crew the better the helo, otherwise why not a crew of 3 ?
                    The Ka pilot has lots of fancy avionics at his disposal to make easier flying and targeting. Fighter jets in cas role don't fly "in the open sky". At least not for too long :)
                    Modern bombers have terrain following systems, for instance, which make flying at Mach 1 at 50 meters above ground possible. Flying an A-10 and targeting is not any easier than flying an AH-64.

                    As the main rotor is concerned, a hit there would down any helicopter. Ka-50 and AH-64 have almost identical rotor diameter (in fact, the AH is slightly larger), so why you are saying that the Ka makes an easier target is a mistery to me.

                    The helicopter has a number of unique characteristics including single seat to increase combat and flight characteristics and reduce operational costs. It was designed for remote operations, and not to need ground maintenance facilities for 2 weeks. The airframe is 35% composite materials with a structural central 1m 2 keel beam of kevlar/ nomex that protects critical systems and ammunition. The fully armored pilot's cabin can withstand 23-mm gunfire, and the cockpit glass 12.7-mm MG gunfire. The Zvezda K-37-800 pilot ejection system functions at any altitude, and enables a successful ejection at low altitude and maximum speed.
                    External stores are mounted on underwing external hardpoints. Each wing has two hardpoints for a total of four stations. A typical mix for targeting armor formations is 12x AT-16 ATGMs, 500x 30-mm cannon rounds, and 2x 20-round pods of 80-mm folding fin unguided rockets. The 30-mm cannon is the same as on the BMP-2. It also carries guided air-to-air missiles IGLA-V (Needle C), already extensively tested and sold to buyers abroad. The Shark's avionics is largely in line with what is the norm for one-seater fighters and ground attack jets. It's most remarkable feature is a remote targeting system with a capability to provide for a sudden deadly attack from a distance that rules out direct visual contact with the target. The firing computer will turn the aircraft to keep the gun on target. It is equipped with downlink to provide information from the battlefield. The targeting and control system and weaponry enable accurate target engagement at ranges of up to 10km.

                    The KA-50 features unique maneuvrability and operating characteristics due to the contra-rotating co-axial rotors. The coaxial counter-rotating rotor system negates the need for a tail rotor and its drive system. Because of this, this aircraft is unaffected by wind strength and direction, has an unlimited hovering turn rate, and gives a smaller profile and acoustic signature, while allowing a 10-15% greater power margin. The HOKUM is fully aerobatic. It can perform loops, roll, and “the funnel”, where the aircraft will maintain a concentrated point of fire while flying circles of varying altitude, elevation, and airspeed around the target.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Terran empire
                      Your comparing fighter jets to Attack choppers again. I think What Magic Spaceship ( love the avatar dude creeps me out) is what i was saying about the flight controls. A attack helo is maping the earth the pilot has to keep his eyes on where he is going avoiding Tree's, Barns, Houses, Radio towers, the occasional Basketball star..., sudden changes in Terrane. Now What the KA 50 does is say to the pilot that on top of that he Now has to watch for targets, aim, Launch, attack and watch the attack FLIR well still flying the chopper.
                      A fighter jet flies in the open sky Although the navy traditionally likes 2 pilots more computerization has made the back seater no longer a operational need. for Jets.

                      He is also right about the rotors as the same thing that makes the tail rotor a target makes the duel rotor a target. if you take out one pair the chopper will spin out of control. the duel rotor is a a lot larger then a tail rotor.
                      On one pilot issue.
                      ______________________

                      This old way of thinking was why Russian millitary did not like Ka-50 and wanted a two seat version Ka-52, which became more expensive than Mi-28N - a simple antitank gunship.

                      Ka-50-2 Erdogan (Turkish version) has an automatic system which allowes it to fly on automatic mode on the 10 meters above the ground on full speed (more than 260 km/h).... the radar automatically tracks the terrain and guides helo without involvement of a person. No individual can do it on full speed for on scattered terrain....... This feature was initially implemented for US strategic bomber B-1B which can fly on the 50m above the ground but speed of 1 mach.

                      Now Ka-52 has a bit more fire management abiliteis but less payload and higher cost.
                      __________

                      On main rotor side the advantage of coaxial is efficiency ratio, and hence smaller diameter of the rotor for the same weight and rotation number. How it is explained? If simplified static lifting force of a main rotor is function of several factors - diameter of rotor X number of blades X number of rotations per seccond.... in a co-axial systen you in fact have two rotors one under another rotation in counter directions. This effectivelly doubles the force at same diameter of the rotors and rotations per second. Moreover because both rotors are rotated by one axis you have great economy of efficiency here.....

                      And finally.... because conter direction of those rotors they ballance each other avoiding the rotation of the helicopter without a tail rotor which stabilizes helicopter against natural counter rotation of one main rotor. This can be also used to an advantage - a coaxial helicopter may turn at any moment regardless of its speed 180 degrees by simply slowing down rotation of one of the co-axial rotors. This gives an increadible maneuvrability - non-coaxial helicopter can never catch a co-axial from tail as the coaxial can easy turn 180..

                      OK. Briefly - AH-64D Longbow has diameter of its rotor 14.63m and maximum take off weight of 10.4 tons and payload of 1.6 tons while Ka-50 has diamiter of its rotors 14.5m and MTW of 10.8 tons with payload of 1.8 tons. In addition to that Ka-50 has higher maximum speed, service celing, and slightly higher internal-fuel range. However AH-64 Longbow has slightly(10km/h) higher cruise speed.

                      ------------------------------------Kamov Ka-50----------Mil Mi-28----------AH-64 Apache
                      Main rotor diameter -----------------14,50 m------------- 17,00 m ----------14,63 m
                      Length with rotating rotors----------16,00 m---------------------------------17,76 m


                      http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ka50/specs.html
                      http://www.army-technology.com/proje...che/specs.html

                      This illustrates that although coaxial rotors give higher efficiency.

                      As for the size of main rotor shaft it is acutally higher 0.5 meters and heavier around 20% and costs twice a normal on rotor shaft. However efficiency gains it provides are worth that.

                      The is one problem with co-axial system - it is harder to design and manfuacture...
                      Last edited by Garry; 02 Sep 05,, 16:57.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        From RIA Novosti :

                        Russia to start production of new Ka-52 helicopters in October
                        18:17 | 13/ 10/ 2008

                        MOSCOW, October 13 (RIA Novosti) - The Progress aircraft maker, based in Russia's Far East, will start production of a new model of the Ka-52 Hokum-B attack/reconnaissance helicopter in October 2008, a company official said Monday.

                        The Ka-52 is a twin-seat derivative of the Ka-50 Hokum-A attack helicopter, and is designed primarily for reconnaissance and target designation purposes. It is similar to the U.S. AH-64 Apache attack helicopter.

                        "The Kamov design bureau has successfully completed testing of the Ka-52 Hokum-B attack/reconnaissance helicopter and it has been adopted for service with the Russian Air Force," Konstantin Parshin said.

                        "The production of the helicopter will start in October at the Progress aircraft-manufacturing company," the official said.

                        Deliveries of the Ka-52 Hokum-B to the Russian Air Force will start in 2009.

                        According to its commander, Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin, the Russian Air Force will receive more than 100 new combat helicopters, including the Ka-52 and the Mi-28N Night Hunter, over a five-year period up to 2015.

                        The Kamov design bureau has said it plans to supply Ka-50 and Ka-52 helicopters to foreign customers in the future.

                        Link

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          KA-52 pics :







                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Considering that your average gunship looks like an ugly, angry insect...

                            The Russians sure have designed one of the prettiest, sleekest helos out there. :)
                            My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                              Considering that your average gunship looks like an ugly, angry insect...

                              The Russians sure have designed one of the prettiest, sleekest helos out there. :)
                              I agree,nice looking bird.
                              "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." Thomas Jefferson

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Franco Lolan
                                Mr. Hitler,
                                post an article plz on how hind shot down f14 in iran
                                That was an Iraqi propoganda, which by the way was a Hind shooting down an Iranian F-4 Phantom II in the original script of the propoganda.

                                I guess it didn't look unrealistic enough, therefore the Iraqis had to update their story by replacing the F-4 Phantom II with a F-14 Tomcat.

                                I love to know more about the engines of this Ka-52 beast
                                Last edited by xerxes; 14 Oct 08,, 20:28.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X